Skip to main content
8:00 pm
house, president obama spoke about ongoing negotiations with congress to raise the federal debt ceiling. and we will hear from senate republicans on their agenda and get their take on the set -- on the debt ceiling talks. and later, a conversation with wikileaks founder. >> mission control, houston. >> roger, discovery. >> nasa is on schedule with the final launch of the space shuttle program.
8:01 pm
president obama spoke about the debt ceiling negotiations between democrats and republicans. his remarks are under five minutes. >> hello, everybody. i wanted to give you an update on the deficit negotiations. i want to wish everybody a happy fourth of july. over the weekend, white team and i have serious discussions with congressional leaders in both parties. i believe that progress is within sight, but i don't want to fool anybody. we still have to work through some real differences. i have heard reports that there
8:02 pm
may be some in congress that want to do just enough to make sure that america avoid defaulting on debt in the short term, but kicking the can down the road solving the larger problem of our deficit. i don't share that view and i don't think the american people sent us here to avoid tough problems. it is what drives them nuts about washington when both parties simply take the path of least resistance. i believe that right now, we have the opportunity to do something big. it can force our government to live within its means and put the economy on a stronger footing for the future. and allows us to invest in that future. we agreed that until we solve the deficit problem, we need to find trillions in savings over the next decade.
8:03 pm
and significantly more this fall. that is the amount i put forward in the framework i announced a few months ago. that is around the same amount the republicans have put forward in their own plans. it is the kind of substantial progress that we should be aiming for here. to get there, we need to take on spending and the tax cut. and this will require both parties to get out of our comfort zones, and both parties to agree on a real compromise. i am ready to do that. i believe there are enough people in each party that are willing to do that. we need to come together over the next few weeks to reach a
8:04 pm
deal that will reduce the deficit and a pulled the credit of the united states government in the credit of the american people. that is why even as we continue discussions, i have asked the leaders of both parties and both houses of congress to come here to the white house on thursday so we can build on the work that has already been done and drive towards a final agreement. everybody will leave ultimatums that the door. is we're going to do what best for him how the economy and what is best for our people. this should not come down to the last second. it is important to show the american people that we can find common ground. another it will require tough decisions and it is better for us to make those tough decisions sooner rather than
8:05 pm
later. that is what a healthy economy is going to require. that is the kind of progress i expect to make. i promise i will keep you guys updated as time goes on. all right? >> are you taking any questions, mr. president? >> and i guarantee you that o.j. will take a million questions. [laughter] >> this news conferences about 30 minutes. their brief remarks to reporters. >> of the events this afternoon were very significant. the senate has sent a message to the leadership that we expect to do real work on the financial
8:06 pm
conditions of our country that includes budget issues and the debt ceiling. those matters are of extreme importance and we should be focusing on that. republican senators wrote to the memorial day recess. we should not recess until we have done something about the debt situation our country has faced. the issue is joined again before the july 4 recess. the president knew what was going to happen. there was not going to be of vote on recessed until the president joined in. i want to say how much i appreciate the new members of the said that have brought passion, enthusiasm, and commitment to this issue.
8:07 pm
i would like to recognize at this time senator johnson and senator kelly have provided so much of the of this the lead on this significant event today. >> i have been following your lead. have certainly been out there talking about how broken the senate is when it comes to the budget. united states senate has not passed a budget in over two years. i understand how broken washington is. the senate is fiddling while american those of a crowd. i said, this has got to stop. and until they get serious about addressing the problem, house going to withhold my consent. we got through the nomination of bill that was late in.
8:08 pm
then they brought of the resolution. i objected. it does not address the fact aware of the in crafting this nation. have of the fact that the united states senate has not passed a budget in two years. have had on time. it is unthinkable and business in this one of those deadlines. we're talking about the united states government and the united states of america. this week, because of such recessions leadership, we came back, but to do what? i have to thank my colleague here for supporting me and my efforts today and have been on
8:09 pm
the phone with me to call of republican colleagues. they were united in the fact that we have got to turn our attention. lead to talk about the fact that we're bankrupting this nation and address real solutions. i want to thank everybody for participating. >> i want to thank senator johnson for standing up lesley and sang that we should not go on recess. we should stay and address the fiscal crisis that the country faces right now. i want to thank my other colleagues the standing here today. s thet to thank senator hatc helped us come together over the
8:10 pm
weekend and said that while libya is an important issue, right before us is the fiscal crisis that we need to address right now. that is why we are back and we're not on recess. i am very disappointed that in pulling bolivia vote, republicans said that we are going to deal right now with the fiscal crisis and make sure that we get the fiscal house in order in washington. he has brought forward this non- binding sense of the senate. we're here to work on real legislation that will address the fiscal crisis. republicans have proposed a balanced budget amendment. to bring us of a responsible trajectory going forward in terms of how much money we're spending, we should be bringing in a real budget resolution to
8:11 pm
the floor. the latest census of the senate is really just a political stunt on behalf of the majority leader. we are done with political stunts. what we need is real leadership. we're ready their roll up our sleeves and put together legislation was going to reduce spending, and bring us the balanced budget. and all of us can make sure that we are leaving, for the next generation, a better country and preserving the greatest country in the world. we are ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work. of like to introduce senator kay bailey hutcheson from texas, and i want to thank her for her leadership on this important vote. >> let me just say that it was
8:12 pm
the spirit of so many in our conference that said, there is something wrong with us coming back, and not keeping the commitments we have made for a purpose. the purpose is to deal with the budget crisis looming in this country. standing with me, and jeff sessions is the ranking member on the budget committee, standing firm that we should have a budget. the first thing we have to do is to put out a budget resolution. and we will know how much spending lead to cut and we will know where the priorities need be. that is the first step. we're going to ask that a budget resolution come to the floor. we don't disagree on the goal. but we do disagree on the
8:13 pm
spending cuts necessary and the priorities. i want to introduce bob corker. he has come up with a real plan to cap spending at a level that is associated with the gross domestic product, and that is the kind of legislation that we ought to be looking at to solve the big problems before us. i think our conference is completely united that this is the priority and we need to get on it. >> most of what needs to be said has been said. i am thrilled to be here with my colleagues have done such a great job. we were dealing a tally this morning as to where we are. he just continued at the end of last week and i'm glad that senator reid has bolivia vote.
8:14 pm
ron johnson, as was mentioned, began this last week. a lot of folks have involved in getting us where we are. i haven't done the math as he just did. he made me do the math is because you mentioned it. in a place like united states senator, typically when you have an ox in the ditch in business, you focused on that talks in the ditch. you don't go off on some tangent that is totally unrelated to the issue at hand. america is fiddling while congress is fiddling while we have this huge problem. libya is an important topic, but no matter what we did this week, the libya -- the senate
8:15 pm
was not going to affect what this happening in libya. it was filler. we have done it in a very unified way. some republican senators had to defer on an issue that they felt was very important, meaning libya, to agree and consolidate around the idea that this is the number one threat to our country, this debt issue. i hope as they mentioned, we will focus on things that have something to do with the budget. it has 797 days. i hope we will focus on the most important national security threat, and debt. i know that we have a debt
8:16 pm
ceiling vote that has to occur according to the administration that may or may not be the right day, but we need to be focused on in. i thank my colleagues for making the next time be the focus. >> let me make sure everyone understands why we are here. we are here because we have the vote at 5:00. there is no question that the majority leader would have been defeated in this effort to move off of the subject of the debt and on to another subject. this is a significant legislative victory with the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at the national that is the number one national security issue today. and we ought to be talking about that.
8:17 pm
there is one reason only that the senate is in session today, july 5, 2011. we have been challenged and come back here and deal with the most pressing issue facing our country. the annual deficit. there are a number of ways to address this substantively. last week, the republican leader invited the president to meet at lunch. the president said that that was not a conversation worth having. he renewed the invitation today in addressing his fellow senators on the floor. i think it would be valuable if the president came and spoke to us. there is the quaint idea of actually following the budget
8:18 pm
law which requires the budget committee to bring a budget resolution to the floor of the senate for debate. it for discussion. and for passage or defeat. i'm calling on the counterpart to address this issue that brings back to washington d.c. this week. and having us deal with it substantively. i think this is the hope of many of us. the house of representatives will send a substantive budget legislation. to prove that it can be passed in the house. the center has been so instrumental in it. send those over and let us vote on that.
8:19 pm
particularly in the case of the amendment for ratification. give us a substantive victories so we can show the american people that we are serious about the debt. and your results for the american people. congratulations to my colleagues for working on this significant legislative victory. we will turn over for questions and answers that you might have. >> on the debt but, what can be done? right now is being negotiated by people. >> there is a lot involved in raising the debt limit.
8:20 pm
the president, with his reckless spending, the three consecutive trillion dollar deficits. we have hit the debt ceiling far sooner than was expected. the issue goes beyond just raising the debt ceiling. how do we change the trajectory we are on? it failed by one vote when i came here in 1997. history show that have that past, we would not be in the whole we are in today. there are a lot of issues. they have to have to have tax increases. let's see what they are. have the committee began to
8:21 pm
analyze them. are they necessary? how much spending needs to be cut. this is the work of congress, and any objective observer would be concerned for the historic role of congress when you consider the settlement of record last december. the sediments that were rushed through. even the health care bill. live not fully engaged in a kind of process that makes for that with public acceptance. >> one of the main reasons i stepped up to the plate last week is because of the process. a limited number of individuals talking behind closed doors. is that how we're going to decide the financial fate of
8:22 pm
america? i did not believe that is what the founders envisioned. what we are calling for is to bring their proposals forward. we realize you don't like our plan and realize you're demagoguing our plan. where is your plan? let's discuss it and let the american people see that. in the end, i think the solution is a two-step process. left to provide overall fiscal discipline. there really is a constitutional amendment. what is on with passing a constitutional amendment and sending it out to the people. but the people decide if they want that discipline. the president is not part of the process, but our colleagues passed a balanced budget amendment, let them decide.
8:23 pm
>> the fact is, i think people understand at this point that republicans are not going to approve a debt ceiling increase without dramatic changes in the character of spending. the things that run just laid out, these are now related. people do not want to see things continue as they are. it might seem in isolation in issue, but all of these things are tied the other. there are issues that can be dealt with this week the would add to an agreement. not just a cat act for the constitutional amendment, but we have members that offer a two- year budgeting cycle. there are all kinds of things. the freeze in federal spending. there are all kinds of things
8:24 pm
that have been introduced that if agreed to would be very much complementary. that is why it is important. >> he talked about how much you want to cut spending and how important it is, and any talk about cutting spending, you talk about procedural things. and you put some real significance into a budget resolution. why not actually come up with real spending cuts and actual changes to programs stand up here and say they want to raise the medicare age. they start talking about all these procedural things. who cares? what you say what you're going to cut? >> those are the things that lead up to a balanced budget. i have put out a social security
8:25 pm
plan. it doesn't increase taxes and it doesn't cut core benefits. maybe people don't like this or that part of it, but we have to get it out there. >> but you're talking about other things. >> i put the bill and. it is on the record. i have had press conferences, i have spoken about it. i have been to the heritage foundation to. i have a real proposal on social security and it will close a 75- year gap without a tax increase and without any cuts to core benefits. that should be part of any discussion that we have. but we have got to have a discussion or a process. any agreement should include that. we are saying to give us the
8:26 pm
process and we have ideas. >> and budget lays out what spending is going to be over the future. unlocks those in and the forces of those -- of a. what? we would have to vote for a budget, possibly. here we are in july. we haven't even had a budget come out of committee. and we are bumping up against the debt ceiling so all of these things go hand in hand. something like the cap at a locked those in. they're all very relevant and very pertinent to what we're doing here today. >> the notion of not having a budget is very significant. but the drama we went through on the continuing resolution.
8:27 pm
there is not a business in this country or a family in this country that doesn't have a plan on what they have coming manhattan had what they are spending. that is why we keep harping on in. we put the budget together, and to meeting those deadlines. having to prioritize and decide where you're going to spend your dollars. i and the newest member of the budget committee, and i can describe my frustration of not being able to do the real worth of that committee. and think it is one of the most important jobs we can do. and to keep kicking the can down the road is irresponsible. >> i want to provide a more direct answer.
8:28 pm
nobody wants to cut spending. if you are in a budgetary process, you don't want to cut spending. i think that you have to enforce the discipline, first. have to have the task. not only to force washington to prioritize spending, how but how making americans realize that you have to prioritize spending. that is what happens when you throw of the actual spending cuts without financial discipline caps that we need. having this is a two-step process. i believe that as the only way, long-term, that we actually fix this problem.
8:29 pm
you do what is necessary in terms of a structural reforms. that is me speaking for myself. one of the reader resolution? this is the topic you want to talk about. the innocence of the senate, -- in the sense of the senate, you had to deal with raising the debt limit and that has got to be real numbers and real figures. we can say that we will begin to talk about enhancing, but there will be a pathetic response from the majority leader. i would note that the house produced a budget that is
8:30 pm
thought as an adult with the systemic problems that we face. they say again, they have got a budget. when the american people like to see it? it is a priority item. republicans have budgets with 51 senators. this is something that they can do. the remarkable feeling is that they are unwilling to let of the kind of numbers it takes to change. $3 billion of an airplane savings. the president of the budget accord by the congressional budget office would increase the debt of america 13 trillion dollars. this is a feint to say they have
8:31 pm
to have a $3 billion deal on commercial aircraft as if it has any significance considering the serious issues. >> this is only a resolution. " what actually be interesting is if they brought forth real tax changes. a pro lee would not support what they brought forward, but the one thing you can say that has been accomplished this afternoon is that we have lots of members that really want to debate libya, right? this is something they have spent a lot of time on. we have all met with leaders of the transitional government. but they want to put that aside and deal with in the most important issue. you all know there is nothing that is prepared other than things we have offered to deal
8:32 pm
with those issues. but the majority knows that we are willing to stick together and not go to any other business other than dealing with the budget, dealing with the debt ceiling. have anythingg to really serious to talk about. it is just a sense of the senate. we will have something before us that israel. that is the victory of what happened. [talking over each other] >> a lot of people have wanted to debate the libya war, how there will always be another budget crisis. when should we actually get to libya? >> most people the that the resolution that is before us was
8:33 pm
defeated in the house. one of the things that has been a misnomer, the president has never asked for authorization. that is not true. people have been saying that he has, but it is not true. in a way, he has tried to bypass the war powers act. i would have respected them more if they said that they just thought it was unconstitutional. you can't have somebody calling something not hostilities when it is. we need to prioritize. and the most important issue as everyone has said, also to our national security is dealing with the debt ceiling and the deficits. there was nothing we were going to do this week in the san that
8:34 pm
in any way affected what was actually happening in libya. and everybody knew that. the senate and i have voiced opinions, nothing was going to change. we need to get back to that. that ought to be the very next item after wheat deal with the financial matters that are more pressing and something that we can actually affect. what we do this week, we were going to do is really not going to affect the activity. on the ground or in the air one iota. [talking over each other] >> [inaudible]
8:35 pm
how realistic is it to ask for that seven-day layover given the time frame? >> we have seen these time frames come at us for months. we have been seen since the first of the year. the president lays out the historic approach. he talked about investments. more spending. his budget made it worse. it increased taxes and spending more than the taxes, making it more than if he had not done anything. as we head into the last hours of the deadline that is being set by the administration, we have seen money. i don't believe republicans are
8:36 pm
to blame for this? -- are to blame for this. s,believe the majority leader's the serious consequences haven't raised the debt ceiling. hopefully, we can avoid that type of event. good to see you, thank you. "washingtonow's journal," we continue the discussion on spending and the national that. after that, the bipartisan
8:37 pm
policy center takes your calls. we're live every morning on c- span. later, president bill clinton is among the speakers at the national conference. other speakers include special interest groups. next, how to make the courts more transparent and accessible for the public. at this judicial conference, they did a cameras in the core and their role of the internet. -- and they address cameras in the court and the role of the internet. >> it is now time for our
8:38 pm
foreign -- forum on an important topic entitled "opening up." can the courts be more open and better understood? ofhave an impressive group legal thinkers including two distinguished federal judges. judge barbara milano keenan. judge joseph anderson. plus two nationally renowned journalists. a top law professor. west virginia's esteemed marshall. particular place
8:39 pm
in my ehart. -- my heart. as a servant to our country over the years that places him among west virginia's most outstanding citizens. in a very basic sense, transparency in the court system begins with mutual respect. i am proud to say that the fourth circuit has always decided to further a collegial and open relationship with the bar. as evidenced by this conference. in our court's tradition of leaving the bench to greet council after every oral argument.
8:40 pm
then again, the greeting of counsel, i had a lawyer friend of mine advise me that in his experience, because of his experiences, he would generally prefer to leave the court room by way of a trap door behind the podium rather than visit with the judges that drilled him in a tough argument. the judiciary has a long way to go in opening up. for too many members of the public simply do not understand the judicial system. there are legitimate complaints that the court sometimes do a poor job of communicating. or are insufficiently accessible. technological advancements have
8:41 pm
created challenges for the judiciary, particularly in managing litigation and striking that balance between secrecy and transparency. and in the age of 24 hour news, they are larger than ever. global the information and misinformation. almost a century ago, a justice going for his dedication of government transparency offered a prescription. sunlight is the best of disinfectants. as the judge, he was aware of the delicate balancing of interests that must occur in this context. we won't solve any problems today. of the panel of its best to identify and confront them practical concerns into realistic solutions.
8:42 pm
one of the issues will discuss is the appropriate role, if any, of cameras in the appellate in a trial court rooms. the courts have wrestled with this issue since the first televised trial in 1953. question was then the national consciousness in 1995 during the trial of o.j. simpson. we know that the case was not typical, but some of the consequences of the media coverage illustrators have cameras can transform courtroom proceedings. before the verdict came down, which was a local prosecution, the president of the united states to was a brief on security measures necessary to address and the potential of nationwide rioting.
8:43 pm
as americans held their breath, long-distance telephone volume declined by 58%. trading on the new york stock exchange fell by 41%. water usage decreased as people avoided using the bathroom. and government meetings were cancelled. people who calculate such things later estimated that american businesses suffered a $480 million loss in productivity. many journalists and others looked negatively on the media coverage of the trial. but for millions of fellow citizens, it provided a firsthand look at the criminal justice system in operation and spartan genuine interest and curiosity about court proceedings. you will hear this morning about the wisdom of allowing cameras in the courtroom from those with
8:44 pm
unassailable experience and credibility. i will take this chance to have this opportunity to throw in my 2 cents. in my view, there is a serious downside. i am worried that with cameras recording everything, there will be much less room for creativity. in war stories told by old worn out trial lawyers. besides that, characters are probably distracting, particularly in the trial courts. media coverage is only one aspect of judicial transparency. in many ways, the courts can control the flow of information to the public and we are obliged to do so in a responsible way.
8:45 pm
approving a sealed the settlement agreements and protecting government secrets, we should ask how the interests of justice and transparency of serve by the use of unpublished non presidential decisions of the appellate courts. we must scrutinize the our own practices and policies including whether or not justices should provide reasons for or against their own accusals and whether we should avoid a teller of lawyers. perhaps the most important area in which the courts can't open the is in the outreach and education this may be the most important area for the lawyers. earlier this year while testifying about the value of social media, who justice
8:46 pm
kennedy explained his issue and that the law lives in the consciousness of the people. that is an inspiring idea. but it is also frightening. the recent poll, for example, revealed that the average american can name more judges on american idol than on the supreme court. to reverse this trend, it is critically important that the bench and the bar play roles in improving -- improving awareness and understanding. sometimes we do a better job than others. a personal example. my granddaughter came to me of years back -- a few years back with a first or second grade school in her assignment.
8:47 pm
-- school assignment. she wanted to know what judges actually do. for the answer i took her down the hallway of the courthouse in charleston to the office of judge blane michael. i said, katie, i got the fella that will leave the answer. judge michael in his patient weigh advised keatie that as bet he could tell, from his experience, her pappy's job and that of all apellate judges is simply to sit in a chair and mark things up.
8:48 pm
she reported that. back to her school teacher. who was not at all amused. with the report of what judge's reallly do. katie called and complained that you and judge michael sure got me in big trouble. she is now a high-school and she still loves to tell the story. backhaul in the second grade about what judges rarely do. fortunately, better efforts are underway. since leaving the bench, justice o'connor has been in the forefront and has been a tireless advocate for bringing the courts to the people. in her awareness initiative aimed at school children,
8:49 pm is a shining example of how the judiciary can employ technology to engage young people. it is aimed specifically at children, but other demographics are also important. as children grow up, they become adults who are distrustful of lawyers, of the judiciary, of government officials, the have contempt for jury service and are disdainful of the judicial system. today, of course, is a broad topic. the panel will survey and highlight these important issues among others. i will now follow what i
8:50 pm
consider a cardinal rule, when you have not much else to say, it is good to sit down. our first speaker, a man with whom he you are all familiar, jeffrey tubin. jeff serves as the senior legal analyst for cnn and is a staff writer at the new yorker. he has written profiles of justices kennedy, thomas, chief justice roberts. and articles of the legal implications of the war on terror. the florida recount, the investigation of president clinton, trials of martha stewart, timothy mcveigh, adjacent to an -- o.j. simpson.
8:51 pm
inside the secret world of the supreme court was a mutlitp -- multiple award winner and a new york times best seller. please welcome jeffrey tubin. [applause] >> thank you, judge. think you for having me. -- thank you for having me. i assure you that my remarks will be the briefest of anyone else. i used to be an assistant u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york and i had a conversation early in my career have i will always remember. it was one of my mentors, john gleason. john said to me, you know, when
8:52 pm
you are in that judge's court, you feel like you are in federal court. i knew what he meant and i suspect you knew what he meant because the federal courts are a great tool of the american government. they are not perfect, but they work better hendry and better resulting than virtually any other part of the government. better than most parts of the private-sector as far as i am aware. that is worth keeping in mind when we discuss the subject of cameras in the court which is what i will devote my remarks to. when we talk about cameras, it is in the context of what negative things will happen. those are all legitimate subjects to discuss. is worth looking at from the other perspective, what good can be accomplished. the federal courts in our
8:53 pm
country both trial and appellate levels were well. and if they are shown to people, by and large, people will see that they were well and that the litigants that appear in front of these judges and the injuries and all of the support personnel and get a fair shake. that is a real virtue of cameras in the quarter of they are ever to be brought to the federal system. it is worth looking at that issue from that perspective as well. it is true that federal courts today are employed and in the sense that the benches in the back of the courtroom are available to whoever might show up on any given day. that is not a public work.
8:54 pm
the handful of people that have the time and inclination and the ability to show up on a given day is tiny. the americans give their news from electronic sources whether it is television radio, or the web. to say a courtroom is public when it is only available to be seen by the people who show up is not realistic as a way of making courts available. it is true that the fourth circuit and the of the state supreme court has made tremendous progress in the late wonderful way in making decisions available on the web. have familiar with the supreme court website and the decisions of the united states unavailable virtually instantaneously.
8:55 pm
that is a tremendous credit to chief justice roberts, he corps, the head of public information. they have done a wonderful job. it is also good that audio is more accessible than it used to be. i know that in the fourth circuit, it is a 24-hour rule. at the end of the week, the decisions are available via audio. it is good, but is not good enough. there is no reason why imortant news events should not be available live, immediately. the more controversial question is video.
8:56 pm
i believe they should be available. i think the question is easier. a lot of the concerns that people have and don't really exist. whether it is the fourth circuit or the supreme court of the united states. you have a professional lawyers arguing, you have matters almost by definition of great importance because they are legal principles. you have the ability to plan and install cameras in intrusive way. cameras and appellate courts, when he not disruptive atoll, and a great public benefits. trial courts are the more controversial areas. i still think that cameras in
8:57 pm
the courtroom are a very good idea. we are all familiar with the proposition 8 trial in california. that would have been a perfect case. trial judges tried to have cameras int he ro -- in the room on that case. you had highly competent lawyers, expert witnesses. there was no jury. in all of those considerations, it should have suggested that cameras should have been that court room. frankly, most of the interest in the news media would have been -- is usually in criminal cases. the casey anthony trial is going on now, and my colleagues at hln, their rating have doubled
8:58 pm
over the last few months. people find trials and interesting and important. and frankly, i think it is our business to provide people with fair and accurate coverage of what they are interested in. public trials require counters. what is the potential for destruction? unfortunately, we are still living with the legacy of the o.j. simpson case. there may have been thousands televised by now, but we're talking about this one case and loss angeles-- in los angeles that was aberrational. if you yo goutu onbe, you -- go on youtube and look at the verdict,yo you can see me
8:59 pm
sitting behind them. i always think, you look a lot older now. it is kind of depressing, but true. i would like to call your attention to a different case. many of you probably remember nikkei's in new york city where an african immigrant in the bronx on his doorstep in the bronx, he had a confrontation under disputed circumstances with four police officers and he was shot 41 times and killed by the cops. it was an extremely controversial and incendiary case in the late 1990's. it had come in many respects,
9:00 pm
the potential to be a rodney king situation peer ahead there were a lot of people in new york that were very upset by the trial. that was one of the reasons why the trial had a change of venue. frankly, it it is as if there were told they could not provide justice in the case of this magnitude so the case was in albany. it was televised. it was very closely followed in new york and all four of the officers testified. and the people of new york saw that it was a hard case. and the officers whose behavior had been characterized negatively, they had an explanation. you can argue about whether it was good or legitimate or not. the public was educated about
9:01 pm
the difficulty of that case. and at the trial went forward and the four police officers were acquitted and the reaction in new york was entirely civil. i submit to you one reason why the reaction was so simple is people did not get all their information from -- civil is people did not get all their information secondhand or third hand, distorted from radio talk- show hosts. they got to see the trial themselves and even if they disagreed with the verdict, they understood it. it was a wonderful example of why cameras can be a force for good.
9:02 pm
one argument i hear from judges about why cameras in the courtroom are not a good idea is that you will get sound bites. if i might say, most respectfully, too bad. we live in a country where the private sector, us, gets to decide how to present our product. not the government which is to say you. decides how we present our product. sound bites are part of how we present ourselves but we also do our best to be accurate and to be fair i am presenting a the news. that is generally the case. there are many counterexamples but by and large, that is the case and the fact that a public proceeding can be televised and will be edited, that is not a good reason not to disclose. not to report. that is my pitch. i do not expect to persuade a lot of you but i hope you can consider it. with that i will sit down and
9:03 pm
listen to everybody else. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. it is a great pleasure to introduce my distinguished colleague. judge keenan came to the fourth circuit in 2010 after serving as a judge at every level of the virginia court system, including more than a decade on the supreme court of virginia. she was the first female judge elected in virginia when she won a district court seat in fairfax county in 1980. she is the first female judge from virginia on the circuit. despite all that wonderful virginia history, there is a little known fact about judge keenan i will share with you this morning. that is judge keenan is a west
9:04 pm
virginian. i will believe that point right there. please welcome judge barbara keenan. [applause] >> thank you. it is great to be here. hello to everyone. i do consider myself more than half of the west virginian because that is where my family is from. i am delighted to be here. bob has asked me to talk about three subjects and i will be touching on them quickly but i expect it will be -- we will be developing them in our group education later. education, electronic media, and third, the issue of unpublished opinion. with regard to education, the different surveys on the subject are pretty staggering. in terms of what americans know
9:05 pm
about the legal system and about our branch of government. nationwide surveys show that only 50% of americans to begin with can name all three branches of government. fewer than 30% of americans now the u.s. supreme court's decisions are final. and almost one half of americans cannot name the single united states supreme court' case. 90% named roe v. wade. we need to educate our citizens not only to provide information about the legal system but as bob alluded to and jeffrey alluded to, to instill confidence in our courts as the arbiters and decision makers of many vital issues in people's lives. this educational progress --
9:06 pm
process begins in the schools and i would submit it begins early. it should begin in the elementary schools and justice o'connor is on target on where to start. we should not even be waiting until the high-school. but spend a lot of my time going into schools and i know a lot of you do too. the best reason for me to do it is it is a lot of fun. it is so enjoyable to hear kids, to exchange ideas with them, and i and my personal experience, i saw a lot of power in terms of diversity and who brings a message to the audience. one of the most frequently asked questions i get from elementary schools is can be boys -- can voice the judges, too? i answer yes, if boys work
9:07 pm
extra hard, they can be judges, too. the students are associating with the spaker. -- the speaker. can i be chosen for the job? it is important for all of us to bring our diversity and our rich backgrounds into the schools. one other favorite question i get from elementary school students and it is a bit of a stumper. they ask, can judges use common sense? it is kind of interesting to formulate an answer that sounds reasonable. with regard to high-school audiences, the questions get more diverse and sometimes they're focused involving locker searches and a personal issues. but then they start asking about
9:08 pm
international law, privacy issues, and a great wide scope of issues. and so i am asking you to bring the message to the students, i suggest there are resources that make it easy to do this. i have an online outline that lists these resources and if you are willing to go into the schools, take a look at that outline and it has enough information in it that you will not have to do advanced preparation. one of the best resources for going into the high schools is the "new york times" article. what they do is give you a teaching element for each one of these 10 cases. dealing with student searches, school prayer, drug-testing for student athletes, affirmative-
9:09 pm
action, and the one that the students are fascinated with. that is that teenagers can be tried as adults in criminal cases. they almost never think about that. as judge king mentioned, justice website is icivics fabulous. the students play games and they assumed roles, but can be president and they can be a partner in a law firm, they can be a member of congress and they are required to make decisions based on the law in these specific roles they have chosen and kids love it. i commend that to your attention also. with regard to adult our reach, the bar has done a wonderful job in the state's in the fourth circuit in bringing messages on how lawyers protect the rights of citizens, especially the more vulnerable citizens in our society, children and the elderly and the disabled.
9:10 pm
the bar and you as members are doing a great job already. i would exhort you to continue in your wonderful service in this regard. it is so important in terms of the future of our citizens and it is a wonderful personal opportunity to reinvigorate your belief in the lot and to teach people who work yegor to learn. with regard to the electronic as you are well familiar, electronic media are not permitted in the federal courts. the federal rule of criminal procedure 53 deals with that specifically and the judicial conference had taken action in
9:11 pm
1996 to lift the ban with regard to federal appellate courts. to date, there are federal circuits, the second and the ninth that allow broadcasting. in 2010, we heard this yesterday. you may not have heard this. the judicial conference is engaged in a pilot project to evaluate cameras in the federal district courts. the program will be within the trial judge's discretion to allow the cameras and the consent of all the parties to the proceedings will be required. the court, not the media will operate the cameras and the recording of members of the jury will be prohibited. it will be interesting to see how that develops. the issues in the u.s. supreme court with regard to broadcasting, until very recently had been mostly in the state court system. in 1965, the supreme court held that it was a due process violation because of the inherent distractions of the
9:12 pm
electronic broadcasting system to televise a trial over a defendant's objections. 16 years later, why and chandler before the, -- in chandler v. florida, the court held it was not a due process violation to broadcast over a defendant was the objections. ant's objections. the supreme court considered the state that the defendant asked for in the proposition 8 gay marriage case in the northern district of california. in that hollingsworth case, i thought it was interesting that the supreme court came out with this decision.
9:13 pm
the basis for the court's decision was that there had not been enough time for comment on the local rule that was required in order to permit the broadcasting. the majority said that there was not enough time to comment. added as a secondary reason, the corps would be discussing a lot of sensitive subjects such as gender equality. i thought that was a little bit of an interesting rationale and came strongly.nt you received 138,000 comments. how many comments are required? that was the dissent of justice fair, balanced, and unafraid -- that was the dissent of justice
9:14 pm
bryar. there was the access that judge walker wanted to permit. judge walker had the last word because he permitted the reporters to send tweets from the court room of the proceedings. it is an interesting issue that is developing in the federal court, the use of the broadcast media. in the state court, it is a lot more settled. virtually all state courts allow for broadcasting in appellate courts. in practice that does not happen too often. because there are not as many requests even at the appellate level. my experience in the supreme court of virginia was that probably two criminal cases a year, maybe three would there be a request for a broadcast.
9:15 pm
in the state court, there are very few trials broadcast and this is something we will be discussing as a group. the inherent difficulties and how quickly things can go wrong and how in the context of a jury trial judges have to be managing a lot of different things at once. if this is happening on tv, how complicates the dynamics. with regard to the appellate broadcasting, my experience is it did not make any difference as an appellate judge. you do the same job and ask the questions and do you lose the sense that the cameras are there. i am speaking for myself and not for my colleagues. they do not all share this point of view. i think it is an interesting argument for our panel discussion that we are living in an age where regrettably, the decline of the print media is astonishing.
9:16 pm
in 2009 alone, 100 newspapers closed and 10,000 newspaper jobs were lost. there is this large vacuum more deficit where the people who traditionally have brought a lot of this information before the public are not available to do so any more. this broadcast step in and expand? if so, under what constraints? if not, what else do we have to bring the message to the people? it will be a good subject for discussion. i would like to touch briefly on unpublished opinions. it is an inside the beltway proposition. maybe more interesting to judges and regular practitioners in the appellate courts but it is of interest to trial judges and two trial attorneys. because what used can be made of
9:17 pm
these opinions, could the court be publishing more? the rules, after january 1, 2007, opinions can be cited even though in published opinions can be cited. citations of unpublished opinions is disfavored accept for a lot -- accept for the law of the case. about one-half of the cases that are argued are published. the decision whether to publish is made by the opinion author and when the case is circulated the way in. there is the panel decision and deference to the author of the
9:18 pm
opinion about whether the opinion will be published. 93% of our cases are decided by unpublished opinion. this is i think the subject of some controversy and we will be talking about it in our panel. it is a hard trade-off for a court and we will talk about this in detail. when you have an appeal of right, you have a huge volume of cases and you have a lot of largely repetitive cases. in a court where you have a system which is much like the supreme court of the united states, every case that was orally argued was a published opinion. every lawyer got a chance at a 10 minute oral argument to convince the court to take the case for full consideration but as a trade-off, the cases that
9:19 pm
were not correlate argued were disposed of in a order of blanket deferments. while there was more publication of opinions, and certainly more oral argument because anybody who had a case could at least argue at the stage 75% of the cases were decided without anything other than an order. which is better? it offers a very difficult question for our continuing debate. those are my basic thoughts on these subjects. i am looking forward to hearing the panel's observations and hearing questions from you. thank you very much. [applause] >> our next panelist is the man behind the webb's first and most first andog -- web's
9:20 pm
most popular blog. a daily collection of links. he is an accomplished appellate advocate in his own right, compiling a record of great success in federal and state courts in pennsylvania. he speaks to us to date as a practicing attorney, as a representative of the new media and as one who simply has his finger on the pulse of our federal courts. please welcome howard bashman. [applause]
9:21 pm
thousands of lawyers, judges, law professors, law students, journalists, and others visit my side every day. if i am here as a representative of the so-called new media, then as a testament to the openness of the judicial system, because the federalist judicial system has made opinions at least at the appellate level readily available on-line. throughout the 10 years i have from my blog -- run my blog, courts have posted on their
9:22 pm
websites. the fourth circuit deserves special praise for making recordings available through its website to let people hear what goes on in court who could not be there in person. notwithstanding the many positive things i could describe, certain easily implemented improvements in openness can still be made. i will focus on two in my remarks this morning. one involves the federal district courts within the circuit and the other involves the fourth circuit itself. unlike federal appellate courts were you can go to their website and click on a few winks and click on them to opinions without having to log in, identify yourself, you can go there and access for early in the opinion that has come out, the nine courts within the circuit have different methods,
9:23 pm
to say the least, of opinion access. not surprisingly, each federal district court has its own web site. under the so-called e-government act that congress enacted, federal courts, trial and appellate, must make their opinions available online free of charge. there is a system known as pacer which stands for public access to court electronic records that people can sign up for an subscribe to over the internet. if you have a credit card. i am sure that everyone including myself has many credit cards but not everyone in the public can get a credit card. that is one way of limiting access to decisions if the only way they are available on-line is through pacer. let me walk through the web sites within the circuit and describe what my survey has
9:24 pm
disclosed. the district of maryland does provide free access to all opinions without any law again. if you know where to look on the home page, there is no link to opinions. opinions are available under the link, case information. it occurred to me you should look there to see if opinions are available and that is where they can be found. turning to the state of north carolina, the eastern district does not make any of its opinions available online through the web site without a login. if you want to access an opinion you have to have a pacer count account and you have to know
9:25 pm
how which is not readily described throughh pacer. middle district does provide access to some selected opinions. how opinions are selected is not something that is described. if you are looking for a selected opinion, you can access that free of charge but all opinions are not available free of charge from the courts website. only some of them. turning next to south carolina, no opinions are freely available without a login. virginia district directs patrons to pacer and explains if the judge has
9:26 pm
uploaded an opinion, it will be available free of charge. if a judge has uploaded an opinion in a manner that is something other than an opinion, you might be charged 8 cents a page. what happened to a judge not uploading an opinion? i wanted to update my blog in the event there was some noteworthy developments. a federal district judge located in florida had issued a decision that was getting reported in the media declaring unconstitutional under the u.s. supreme court the method in which florida jury's decide to implement the death penalty. decide to impose the death penalty against a defendant. a federal district judge had
9:27 pm
issued an opinion that had declared the florida death penalty unconstitutional. that would affect the casey anthony trial. this decision was 93 pages long. i looked for the opinion and like many of the districts, the southern district does not make opinions freely available. i have to -- had to log in through pacer. this decision was nowhere to be found. fortunately the associated press had reported the docket number of the case. i went in and called up the docket which itself is a charge of 8 cents. a minor charge. i saw that there was a decision and this decision was docketed by the district judge in florida as an order. an 93 page order as requiring me
9:28 pm
to incur a $2.40 charge. i downloaded the opinion and now this decision is freely available to the public in a way that it should have been freely available. this is one way to describe how even that system is not perfect in providing free access to opinions. the eastern district of virginia's website explains the you can get free access to opinions if the judge has described his or her opinion as an opinion. happily, the western district just like the district of maryland makes all opinions available through the web site without any login. you can get them easily. the northern district of west virginia provides for access to all opinions from the homepage of the web site without a l
9:29 pm
ogin. west virginia gives free access to published opinions only. my first suggestion today is that when the judges and other employees of these courts get back to their offices next week, you take a look at your web site and you see members of the public get easy access to our opinions the way they are supposed to be able to do under the act of 2002 without having to share their credit card information with the federal judiciary. i am sure that many members do not wake up sang i would like to send my information to gain free access to their opinions. let me turn next and find to my own inside baseball topic. which is with regard to the fourth circuit.
9:30 pm
the issue of learning who is on the oral argument panel. i will turn to the third circuit. i have become accustomed to a system where two weeks before an oral argument date, the third circuit will send me a letter or today send me an e-mail with a link to gain access to an electronic letter that says will be appealed the early argued or not and will identify who the judges are on the panel that are assigned to the case are. throughout the federal appellate level, 10 of the 13 federal courts of appeals -- you learn to your panel is going to be before the case is breached. at the time before you get to court, you know who the judges
9:31 pm
are going to be but not in the fourth circuit. not in the seventh and not in the federal circuit. what is the reason for why it is done this way? the answer is that is the way it has been done. there are other reasons that provide more of an explanation. let me begin by trying to explain what the benefits are to knowing who the panel will be in advance. it allows the advocate to prepare knowing the likes and dislikes of the judges. the backgrounds of those judges and to be able to take into account whether those judges play any rules in the key rulings that will determine the outcome of the case. even more importantly it provide someone who is not a repeat player before the court. with more of a level playing field in having confidence coming into an oral argument.
9:32 pm
they are ready to beat -- to implement than knowledge without having to know in advance where as people from other places or coming to the fourth circuit for the first time, there will not have that ability but if they knew who the judges will be, the plainfield will be more level. and perhaps even most importantly in the case where this comes into account, recusal issues in determining whether judges should be recused is not something that is left to the judges. they play a large role in determining if they need to recuse and they have methods in place for determining that in advance. in cases where the identities are known to the lawyers and the parties in advance, those lawyers and parties can bring to the judge's attention refusal bases that the judges have overlooked.
9:33 pm
after an oral argument has occurred, there are different competing interests in deciding whether an attorney will drop to the judge's attention possible recusal bases. if the judge is telling me he disagrees with the other side's position and i go back and tell my client, judge so-and-so's who disagrees may have a reason why they should be recused. my client will give me a stern talking to about why we should not recused judge someone so -- so and so. similarly, if the judge is opposed to your own side's arguments, it is touchy
9:34 pm
because the other side will not look favorably at the been brought up. judges take a dim view if you are trying to play gamesmanship as opposed to assisting the court in performing its proper role. the responses i hear from judges who defend the system that is in place is that lawyers can be prepared for anyone to show up on the day of oral argument. that is rich -- true. the court has many judges who visit and from outside the circuit. there is no way to be prepared for any federal district or circuit judge within the u.s. to be on your panel or retire the justice from the u.s. supreme court. judges feel that lawyers will improperly tried to pander to
9:35 pm
the court or ingratiate themselves or curry favor in a way that is not proper by saying you wrote this decision and that governs the update. it happens even though they do not reveal their identity that lawyers will try to do that. if you say that to judge posner, there will give you a stern talking to to explain that whether or not i wrote the opinion or defended from the case, it makes no difference whatsoever. anyone is capable as i am to understand what that decision means and that is the truth. i subscribe to that view. the judges within the fourth circuit can educate the lawyers as to the proper way of arguing to judges. the problem with pandering or ingratiating is not solved by releasing the identity of the judges on the day of the oral
9:36 pm
argument. as i wrote in one of my columns, if judges do know what the lawyers to pander or argue depending on who they are, they can sit behind a screen and have their voices distorted electronically as though they are mafia testifying before congress. the answer to this problem is not simply to identify the judges on the morning of the oral argument. if the judges do not want the lawyers to know who wrote opinions, the court could decide to issue opinions as a decision the way the u.s. supreme court supposedly once did way back when. in order to level the playing field, to allow lawyers to prepare in the best possible way, and to allow the court to benefit from refusal input that is generated from the lawyers and the parties before the judges have heard the oral arguments, this court should
9:37 pm
consider trying out for a year or to a method where the panel identity is revealed to the lawyers sometime in advance. not way in advance so lawyers can try to gerrie rick the process but a week or two in advance where the lawyers have the date on their calendar as a day there will be in court and the court will understand that the identity is not a basis of trying to get out of that date and get some other date in the future. in these ways the fourth circuit and the federal courts could increase public access to their rulings and could increase the efficiency of the system and could allow attorneys to be as useful as possible at oral argument. thank you for your attention.
9:38 pm
>> thank you. i have mentioned our next panelist but he is deserving of a more formal introduction. h. marshall jarrett has been a u.s. attorney in southern virginia. he heads the executive office of the u.s. attorneys. he served for more than a decade as director of the justice department's office of professional responsibility. counsel to the attorney general for professional responsibility. he speaks to us as an unofficial emissary of the executive branch. please welcome marshall jarrett. [applause]
9:39 pm
>> i am pleased to be here this morning at this lovely location in west virginia. it is a special honor to appear here with judge king for whom i worked when he was the u.s. attorney in this district. he has remained my friend and i have learned a lot from him when i worked for him and i have learned from him over the years. when i first became a prosecutor here, you could tell you had a big case when at the closing argument, some of the other prosecutors would come down the hall and watch you in the courtroom. you could tell you had a big case when the charleston gazette sent a reporter to cover the trial. back then, i could not have imagined the day would come when
9:40 pm
you could watch a trial from a computer screen or a cell phone sitting in an airport or sitting in starbucks. i could not imagine the day when you could read on this wonderous invention: ipad. -- called an ipad. could not imagine there would be a public web site called, who is a rat, which exists for the purpose of exposing people who cooperate with law enforcement. with no apparent purpose than to cause harm. modern technology has dramatically changed the way the public and litigants' interact with and learn about the courts.
9:41 pm
i applaud this court for recognizing the time has come for us to ask ourselves, are we using the best technology and policies to make the court open and accessible to all people? at the same time, are we remaining mindful of the balance crucial to the competing interests in promoting the public's right to know and their confidence in government institutions with protecting individual rights, the defendant's right to public trial or the right to privacy and preserving the integrity of the judicial process and the administration of justice. these are important issues to the department of justice and to me in my capacity as director. like most of us in the room, the
9:42 pm
department of justice starts from the position that what happens before the court should be open, accessible, and transparent. the united states attorneys' manual which contains policies for its lawyers provides that careful weight must be given to the constitutional requirements of a free press and public trials as well as the right of the people in the democracy to have access to information about the conduct of law enforcement, officers, prosecutors, and court consistent with the individual rights of the accused. further recognition should be given to the needs of public safety, the apprehension of fugitives and the right of the public to be informed, or change of public policy. in conducting this balancing, the u.s. attorney's manual
9:43 pm
advises the careful way to should be given in each case to the rights of victims and let against as well as the protection of the life and safety of other parties and witnesses. to this end, the court and congress have recognized the need for a limited confidentiality in certain areas, such as ongoing law enforcement operations, a grand jury and tax matters, and state secrets. for its part, the department has established policies to ensure that our attorneys say confidentiality only one clearly necessary and then only to the degree necessary. notwithstanding the general principles of openness, we take steps in our work to strike the balance. the right balance between those competing interests between openness and privacy. for example, we share the duty to protect private information
9:44 pm
like social security numbers, tax information. in most jurisdictions, you cannot file a notice of substitution of counsel without checking a box acknowledging the obligation to redact private information from court documents. the public's ability to access documents from any federal court in the country through pacer is a phenomenal development not withstanding that minor charge. it is still a phenomenal development in the goal of achieving openness but it implicates competing concerns. on the one hand, public access about the court has never been greater with the availability of court documents and dockets on pacer which almost anyone can access with a credit card. on the other hand, this accessibility to court documents renders an effective protection of what we call practical
9:45 pm
obscurity. the idea that although information is publicly available, the difficulty of compiling such information and the extra effort needed to go to the courthouse afford some measure of privacy. for example, plea agreements in criminal cases may contain information about a defendant that is cooperating with law enforcement. with websites like, the availability of information on pacer threatens the integrity of the judicial process and it is just not cooperators. victims and witnesses alike may be reluctant to participate knowing their testimony may be broadcast far and wide across a wide range of media. and so it is essential in the functioning of our adversarial process we find balanced ways to
9:46 pm
protect privacy while affording litigants' fair and open trials. in addition, preserving the integrity of our system requires the department of justice to take interest in protecting ongoing investigations. if law enforcement agents who have been conducting a long-term confidential investigation of a serious crime, when they are doing that, no one should jeopardize the investigation by exposing it prematurely. no one should want to alert criminals so they can avoid apprehension, destroy evidence, or take harmful action against associates they believe may have turned on them. or even worse, they should not be alerted to a pending law enforcement investigation in time to arm themselves and resist when law-enforcement officers come to arrest them. another reason we seek to prevent the disclosure of information about ongoing
9:47 pm
investigations is to prevent the release of information about allegations that may turn out to be armed -- unsubstantiated. we do not want innocent people to be tainted by disclosure of the fact we are under federal investigation. for this and other reasons, the law has struck a balance in favor of ceiling grand jury proceedings and certain search warrants. when we come back full circle to our starting point, i think there is a next step we can take. it may not be enough for us to unlock the doors, and sealed documents, and stand back and wait for people to take initiative to learn about the system. even more -- even though the courts have been open, very few people are willing to take the walk to the court house to watch a trial or go to the clerk's office and put the nichols in the copy machine to make copies of a civil settlement or plea agreement. the walk has been replaced by a few keystrokes on pacer or by
9:48 pm
the press of a tv remote. historically, the public has relied on the media to find out what is happening in the court rooms. before we had 24 hour news channels, there was not always space or time for the public to get the biggest picture or the smaller details of what was happening in the courtroom. the current reality is that the general public will get their news from tv or web site, according to pure research. the majority get their news from television and the internet. with the internet surpassing television for those under 30. rather than relying on the media as the source of information, doj has taken steps to use these new tools and become more active storytellers about the work in court. last year in response to the president's directive, the
9:49 pm
department of justice, along with other executive branch agencies, adopted its open government plan. one of the things the department has pledged to do in its open government plan is to release more information about its representation of the u.s. in court. where the public has relied on third parties to provide brief, incomplete descriptions of what we have done. in this effort to provide more information to the public, in our work on courts on may 1, a new page was launched on the public website called the briefing room which highlights the work of u.s. attorneys offices across the country. it offers news, statistics, and other significant efforts that offices have taken on department priorities and initiatives. this website we hope will enhance understanding of the work our offices do to enforce the federal laws and represent the interests of the united
9:50 pm
states. helping the public to understand the work of the department of justice is much more than talking about cases where prosecutors and defense. a few days ago, the department launched a new web site called a searchable database design to and for mayors, police chiefs, judges, practitioners, and policy makers about what works in criminal justice, juvenile justice, in crimes and victim services. it includes information on more than 150 programs covering a range of justice related topics. it provides evidence ratings of evaluating the competency of the programs. rated effective, promising, or no effect. to indicate where there is evidence where program achieves its goals. this is one with the department
9:51 pm
is using technology to disseminate state of their knowledge and practices around the country and to foster justice programs that translate evidence into practice. open government does not just inform the public. one of the goals of open government is to find solutions and to share solutions to improve our federal, state, local, and tribal justice systems. we should embrace the tools at our disposal and use them to educate the public. we must do so responsibly, balancing the right to a fair trial and the right of the public to know and the government's ability to effectively enforce the administration of justice. we should be optimistic that public confidence in the judicial system will rise the more they are able to learn about the work we do in our courtrooms every day. thank you and i look forward to our discussions and questions from you. [applause]
9:52 pm
>> thank you. our next panelist is an action oriented district judge from south carolina. a shining example. in 1986 when he was 36 years old, judge joseph anderson, jr. was appointed to the federal bench in south carolina which i understand makes joe the youngest federal judge in the history of that state. fortunately for us, he is also a scholar on the subject of secrecy in the court system. he is a steadfast advocate of transparency. please welcome judge joe anderson. >> thank you. if you go to the electric
9:53 pm
dockage for a federal district will not identify, seeking information about civil docket 003687 one entry would appear on the screen. that is the caption of the case. it reads, sealed vs. sealed. there was an order which provides as follows. the entire record in this case will beor this order, sealed and half access shelby had upon -- and access shelby had upon order of this court. -- shall be had upon orders of this court. it is an effective system and depends on large measure of
9:54 pm
public confidence in the work of that system and it is hard for the citizenry to have confidence in the system it does not understand. part of the reason for this confusion is our fault. we speak our language and we follow ancient traditions, we seek to administer justice without any real concern for exploiting to the public what we do, and sometimes, not all cases but in some cases, we slammed the door on the public to information about the case and its procedural history. this is what i would like to speak to this morning. the question of whether and to what extent a judge should order confidentiality in cases is one that has troubled courts and policy makers for years. events of the past decade have brought our courts and to distribute -- into disrepute.
9:55 pm
i am speaking about the firestone tire and catholic priest cases. this has led to proposed draconian laws. the sealing of anything lawyers have requested sealed. trade secrets, proprietary information, state secrets, a sensitive security data, they deserve the law's protection and in order to protect the confidentiality of information such as that. the difficult questions occur at the margins. what should a judge to in the
9:56 pm
groundwater contamination case that will settle but only give -- if the judge gives an order requiring the destruction of documents and a gag order on the lawyers never to discuss the case with anyone? does the judge have an obligation to the legal system at large or too future litigants who might live -- or to future litigants who might live in the area? suppose a judge presides over the settlement of an action involving a teacher accused of molesting a child? he is told the case will settle only if the judge will go a long with the confidentiality order and a gag order imposing a ban on information about the case. what if the teacher knows -- what if the judge knows the teacher will remain in the classroom? these are hypothetical cases but let me give you some real-life examples. in july 2004, johnny bradley and his wife began a cross-country
9:57 pm
trip to his new duties station in florida. having followed the news accounts about firestone tires and the dangers associated with them that had come to light because of court ordered confidentiality, he equipped his ford explorer with cooper tires and had his vehicle checked before leaving for florida. while in mexico with his wife behind the wheel and their son asleep -- new mexico with his wife behind the wheel and their son asleep, the tire separated, killing his wife and rendering johnny unconscious for two weeks. he missed his wife's funeral. only then did john bradley, perhaps the most prudent of all reasonable men learned that cooper tires such as the ones on his vehicle had also been the subject of more than 200 lawsuits and learned also that almost all the documents about those tires were kept
9:58 pm
confidential by judges around the country who had kept vital information about the public that could have prevented this tragedy in his family. he presented all this information in sworn testimony to a congressional committee two years ago. in 2006 the florida judiciary added a new verb. to superseal. reporterscoined by who discovered that counties had kept a docket with cases that vanished into a kind of legal black hole where it was impossible to tell not just w tat was in them but t all. it was reminiscent of "men in
9:59 pm
black". the judges of the district of south carolina voted to adopt a rule which provided modest restrictions on court ordered secrecy associated with the settlement of cases. when the rule was released for public comment, reaction from around the country where swift and the rhetoric was heated. the debate revealed the opposing camps were divided with little ohope of middle ground. one writer suggested the members of our court were "modern-day thomas jeffersons". another suggested soldiers were fighting to prevent the type of thing we were dealing
10:00 pm
with. while media organizations and public interest groups supported it. interestingly, the bar supported the rule change on paper. me that our new rule was not a good one. why? because secrecy was a bargaining chip that could be used to leverage more money from the dispirited defendant. in other words, many defendants and not satisfied with an agreement between the parties to maintain confidentiality. .hey want a judge's signature many lawyers are all too happy to go along because secrecy
10:01 pm
provides a sweetener. if you were to think about it, this means that secrecy, court ordered secrecy, government and for secrecy, is a commodity that has a market value that is being bought and paid for with the judge's complicity. in my view, courts and civil cases to not operate to engage in a system where the signature is for sale. what do the parties came by in order that could not be accomplished by mutual agreement between parties? the first thing it comes to mind is the contempt brought to bear on anyone who violates the order. fair enough. some of the literature suggests that other less pure motives may be at play as well. there are certain reporting requirements imposing obligations on businesses to support events causing injury.
10:02 pm
these go to the consumer product safety and the joint -- north carolina news reporters suggest that under reporting to these agencies is rampant. he suggests that some of the time companies are hiding behind the judge's signature and failing to disclose this information. hiding behind the gag order they invited the judge to sign. those who wrote in to oppose our role suggested three principal arguments, they said that litigants should not share their privacy rights. they should know is agree to keep things confidential. this argument misses the mark. our will have nothing to do with bilateral agreements on confidentiality. it deals with court orders requiring the parties to maintain confidentiality.
10:03 pm
he second advanced by 90% of the people responded, suggested that settlements -- on every case a doctor would go to trial. one person said judge anderson, at this goes into affect, you will try hundreds of hundreds of cases. the arguments suffer from the premise that if lawyers were deprived from the opportunity could chihli judge into signing a confidentiality agreement, they would air in their dispute in the mass public of all forums, a trial before a jury in a public courtroom. we have 10 years of experience under our new rule. guess what? our entire court has not tried hundreds of hundreds of cases. our civil trials have continued to spiral downward just as they have all around the country. i will not bore you with the statistics.
10:04 pm
whip tried far fewer cases in the 10 years since the rule was passed than in the years preceding the adoption. the final arguments was an economic rule. economic argument rather. added that one play out? business development has gone up each of the past nine years. if you do not believe the common drive by the new boeing plant. or go by the new amazon distribution facility that was broken ground several weeks ago or the bmw plant their recently announced a new production line of to under 60,000 cars -- 260,000 cars per year. none of the predictions cantor.
10:05 pm
life goes on. colonel sanders secret recipe is still safe. public safety is promoted. i think the public has a little more confidence in what we do. i have been called upon to occasions to testify before congress in connection with the proposed federal litigation legislation. i would go far beyond what we did in south carolina, particularly in relation to confidentiality orders. dramatic testimony from people have urged congress to intervene in this area. my sense is is that if we do not take steps to keep our house in order, we will wake up with more draconian laws that even sunshine proponents admit go too far. i am cautiously optimistic we have passed the tipping point on
10:06 pm
court secrecy although a few jurisdictions copied we do. it has the least may judges more mindful of what comes into place when we sign confidentiality agreements without good reason. one judge interviewed on a major news network was quoted as saying she was signing orders and the moon was made that she's it was consented to an necessary to settle a case. -yes change her mind. on the national level, sealing court records -- when we still parts of the court record. no speech to a group of lawyers would be complete without a legal citation. the 1677 concessions and agreement of west new jersey, the formative document for the state of new jersey, provided in
10:07 pm
all public courts of justice and the person may for the coming to and attend the said courts so that justice may not be done in a secret corner know in any covert manner. all law is good law. they got it exactly right. [applause] thank you very much. >> thank you, judge anderson. our final palace comes to us from the university of maryland school of law where she is a distinguished professor. she has written in areas of civil rights, voting rights, and judicial diversity, and judicial decision making. she is also a national recognizable rights litigator and she frequently appears on television and radio to discuss the court system and persian and
10:08 pm
legal issues. please welcome a professor. [applause] >> i want to thank judge king for the invitation to be part of this panel. i do not want to thank him for being last. i have been cutting as i go. let me see what i can contribute to this subject before we have our discussion. i should say i take very seriously the name of this panel, opening up. it is my hope that all of you will be willing to be open to exploring what may be some uncomfortable realities about transparency in our federal courts, some of which will party heard this morning. in the hopes that we can imagine some ways to promote greater openness, acceptance, an appreciation of judging on the federal bench. it seems to me that there are two potential audiences that
10:09 pm
issue when we talk about open courts. we have to determine who we're talking to, understood by whom. i am sure we will spend a good deal of time talking about how the media understands what judges do when we have our discussion as well as cases decided by federal judges. i would like to begin by suggesting we begin with exploring whether courts can be more open and better understood within the profession. those of us who are lawyers, where the first and most knowledgeable ambassadors about our core system. judge king already alluded to this when he talked about recusal practice. others have talked about this as well. accusal is one of the most important point of communication between the judges and lawyers. it is easy to deal with refusal in the matter of bias or someone
10:10 pm
holds stock in a corporation or is related to one of the parties or counsel for one of the parties. the greatest difficulty stems from rescues a when a judge's impartiality might be questioned or that there is the appearance of bias. injustice o'connor explained an unrelated contexts, appearances to matter. the statute governing the appearance of bias makes clear that a judge who withdraws from a case should do so when her impartiality may be questioned. it does not indicate that judges should wait by a file motion by party. the judge should be prepared to disqualify herself a reasonable person would believe that a judge might not be able to impartially decide the case. the states -- stakes are higher when a party has decided to seek
10:11 pm
refusal. the judge must sit in the shoes for the reasonable person. although i hesitate to say this before this audience, it is important to remember that federal judges are not reasonable persons. by that i do not mean you are rational. i only mean that what appears to a federal appellate judge as the appearance of bias often differs greatly then how might appear to a reasonable person or an unreasonable lawyer. the moment when a judge declines to recuse yourself it is one that generates anxiety and concern for litigants and lawyers alike. we might spend some time during our discussion session talking about what should happen when a judge denies the motion to recuse. should courts have refusal panels made up of retired academics and judges specializing in judicial ethics might make recommendations in individual cases that can be affirmed were adopted by the court?
10:12 pm
the most important communication between judges and the profession exists within the framework of opinion. it has been talked about unpublished opinion. we'll talk about them more. the judicial opinion provides a critical space for judges tookes by contentious issues, to rebuild their reasoning, to explore arguments and even to speak directly to the parties, to the legislature, and two other courts. the opinion is becoming an endangered species. according to a recent study, four out of five decisions are made without an opinion. those figures are higher in some courts including the circuit as has been explained earlier. this is an enormous blow to transparency. it has the possibility of threatening the integrity of our judiciary in the eyes of the public. i would like to pull the thread
10:13 pm
about the statistic of the lack of published opinions to explore with some of the reasons are and to think about how we might address it. as you know, you could not write opinions for all of the cases that come before the fourth circuit or that -- that would be true of any phaedrus circuit. there is an imbalance between the edge of judges and the number of justices on our federal court. the reasons for this unbalanced are somewhat complicated. one reason is that congress has made a set of political decisions that kept attention on the federal do justle system. beginning in the 1980's, congress was part of the war on drugs. i am from baltimore. we have to mention the war on drugs. congress began to federalize crimes that had here to fore wall -- fallen into the province of state law. it did not intend to engage in a lot critique on the war of drugs, there has been little
10:14 pm
discussion between federal crimes and the federal courts. for those federal cases, criminal cases, the constitutional requirement is the defendants received -- receive a speedy trial. this is had consequences for the work of our courts. at the same time, congress has been reluctant to increase the number of judges in each circuit to carry the increased workload of these federal cases. they have sometimes been discouraged from adding judges to the judiciary. for the most part, starving the judiciary has become something of a badge of honor. no party wishes to increase the judiciary when they're opposing party is in the white house or controls congress. we've had something of a stalemate. in fish -- insufficient number has compelled in the sherry to expand practices that further
10:15 pm
raise questions about transparency and openness. the use of central staff attorneys to handle cases is a longstanding practice. as it increases, it raises important questions about the exercise of judicial authority by attorneys not subject to the confirmation prices -- process. i am not referring to clerks who work with a couple of years for a judge. i speak of clerks who work for the judiciary rather than individual judges and who have responsibilities that may range from screening cases to drafting recommendations and opinions that routinely are adopted by judges. i've been working on a study on the use of central staff attorneys. if you're received a questionnaire, please respond. i do not wish to impugn the work
10:16 pm
of central staff attorneys. they serve an important role in managing quake -- cases. their work has become invaluable to the efficient running of our court. the increased use of central staff attorneys was created by the failure of congress to sufficiently allocate judges to dispose of the increased caseload created by congress is decisions in the areas of criminal justice. the consequence is a decision making structure that exists outside the understanding of lawyers and litigants to use the federal system. the importance of the judicial opinion to how the public understands stenches, it was on rare display two weeks ago.i wan though it comes from state courts. it is responsive to the point made earlier about cameras in the courtroom. it is my view that the opinion is the principal and the most important means by which the court can transmit and
10:17 pm
understand what it does. in a rare opinion issued by a trial judge, the court released an opinion accompanying its conviction of an off-duty police officer for the killing of a patron would grow to the officer's girlfriend in baltimore. these cases are very public and volatile. judge hart again wrote an opinion accompanying his decision to convict the officer of manslaughter. the opinion was no example of high artistic pros but explained in very clear language of the thought process in concluding that the officer had not committed first-degree murder but had not acted in self- defense in killing him. the decision was hailed by many members of the committee for its clarity and explication of how the judge weighed the evidence, what he saw when he visited the scene of the crime, why he found
10:18 pm
some witnesses credible and others not. as a result of that opinion, the verdict was received without the usual vitriol and anger these cases usually generate. one final point about the importance of opinions, i want to make an argument in favor of multiple opinions. i mean in favor of concurrences and dissent. i fully support the importance of unanimous decisions in cases in which the court goes into a contentious area and which is to demonstrate the full power of the court, courses like brown vs. board of education, cooper vs. aaron, nixon watergate. one of the most disappointing aspects of the brush verses court decision was the inability of the majority to cook here around 10 -- cohere around one
10:19 pm
opinion. concurrences and dissent provides opportunity to demonstrate to the public that judicial decisions are not inevitable but the result of a process that is less certain that a strongly worded majority opinion may suggest. 10 years ago, judge king issued a case i lost before the fourth circuit. the case involved a challenge by black residents of a community in maryland, a highway leading out to the ocean city beach. my clients were prepared to demonstrate the decision to crest -- construct the bypass constituted the third time in 60 years the state had chosen to route a highway directly through or adjacent to this community. we lost on the statute of limitation grounds. judge king wrote a concurrence. it began, "i write this to
10:20 pm
express my views about the shabby treatment afforded the residents of jersey heights by the state of maryland. we lost the case but because of that concurrence i did not convince my clients. for them the consent -- concurrence was evidence they had been heard. even if the klan could not go forward, they had had their day in court. this can play a valuable role to appreciate our course. i opened the discussion we will be able to address many of the other important issues alluded to by my panelists. thank you for having me. [applause]
10:21 pm
>> i want to turn to the cameras in the courtroom point. it seems to me that he is more interested in getting cameras into trial court rooms then in the appellate court rooms. if he could speak on that in a moment. i would like to hear what judge anderson, one of the most experienced trial judges in the circuit, thinks about bringing cameras into the trial court rooms. >> i think we will see it in our lifetime. i think we can deal with that. judges need to have tools to handle the situation. the news media says that cameras report what is happening, they do not affect the proceedings. if you believe that, turn on the television. you can see normally sane individual back like they are form mars. -- from mars.
10:22 pm
there's also the o.j. simpson case. the william kennedy smith's trial in florida. he was acquitted. if the case had not been televised, the public what of cents, a rich family beat the system. the public was able to see the weaknesses in the case and had more confidence in the verdict. there needs to be some discretion. the pilot projects, the judge has a kill switch when he can stop the action at any time for any reason. i think that is controversial. i think it will work. we can make it work. >> what kind of safeguards would you impose on protecting witnesses, jurors, what ever else needs to be done in
10:23 pm
managing the use of cameras in the courtroom? >> i know there are varying proposals. i am not an absolutist on this issue. florida is the only state that allows photographing of the jurors a during trials. that seems unnecessary. i think that would be a useful area to establish a flat rule. i am in favor of flat rules rather than giving judges or parties veto power over the decision to televise. that is not how we operate in this country. we have rules that apply to everybody. i think we should not have a system where the parties can veto it. he public scrutiny a seat -- issue is an important one. it was a controversial decision back in the 1970's when both
10:24 pm
houses of congress decided to televise their proceedings. people said it was change things. perhaps it did. imagine today if the house of representatives said, we're not going to televise our proceedings any more. we think it would be better to do it in private. there would be a rebellion because the public expects that is a part of our government that is available to them to see. once we establish a regime where the expectation is that trials are public, just to get a point you raised earlier, i am not management, i am talent in the business, i think management
10:25 pm
wants to cover triose much more than appellate arguments. there would be limited arguments -- audience for coverage of appel met -- appellate arguments on a regular basis. once we establish a rule where something is available to the public, the public gets very irritated when that is taken away from them. that would be true for congress. it will eventually be true for courts once we get a more regular access. >> you mentioned that cameras complicate the dynamics of the trial courts. you see cameras as more of a problem in the trial courts. >> yes, i do. it has been a long time since
10:26 pm
i've been a trial judge but i was one for five years. in the context of the jury trial in campeau's a lot of problems, not just weathered jurors can be seen on camera but what happens in the instance that the jury needs to be excused for argument by counsel. would those be broadcast? what about motions for a mistrial when the jury is not sequestered? would those be broadcast and the jury allowed to go home? there's a lot of complications. the instantaneous problems that occur in the dynamics of a trial, it seems to me opposes a very strong problems that are not very strong and the appellate contexts. i deferred to judge anderson on this because his experience is current. mine is not. i do have reservations that i do
10:27 pm
not have for the appellate court. >> you have some experience in this kind of thing. what safeguards ought to be imposed if you're going to tell a lie something? >> let me talk about concerns. i have concerns in the context of criminal trials. the concerns fallen to do to do -- two different types. the truth finding function of the process and concerns about security. they are different but they're in some ways related. i have concerns about the effect cameras can have on the performance, behavior of some trial lawyers. perhaps the performance of witnesses who are not happy about being there, especially in a criminal case where they may be testifying about behavior they are ashamed of.
10:28 pm
i have concerns about security. ? concerns about the testimony of undercover police officers and court personnel. this world in which there are a lot of folks with strong feelings, i worry about having our judges being publicly known and visible. >> can i raise an issue about security. i take those issues seriously. i do not have a comprehensive proposal. i think there is another side to the security issue which relates to public knowledge and intelligence. in 1993, there was a bombing of the world trade center which had a much smaller loss of life. it was a serious event in new york. it led it to the rest of the so- called blind sheik.
10:29 pm
there were a couple of a major criminal prosecutions that came at of that in the southern district of new york in the 1990's. those are not televised. they were not widely followed. there were some newspaper stories. many of my colleagues who have studied al qaeda and the terrorists have said that those trial transcripts were an enormous treasure trove of information about al qaeda and what later became 9/11. if that information had been more widely available. if that information had been more a part of the public conversation, perhaps the country would have taken that issue more seriously in the subsequent years leading up to
10:30 pm
9/11. yes, there are security concerns about court personnel. but i also think that public education can be can be a benefit to security. >> we are talking about the unusual case. it is not a surprise we talk about the o.j. simpson case, any of the other the barents -- average cases. we are seeking greater intelligence about our justice system. that plays out through the average and the ordinary. that is the garden variety cases that come before the court. when we talk about federal courts we are a screening out a huge portion of the garden variety. nevertheless, we have to
10:31 pm
actually think about the context in which we increase the public's understanding of the judicial system. by having cameras in the courtroom for those garden variety cases. i do not know for talking about a system in which we're talking like c-span so there would be a running loop of a different courtroom today. i do not know if we're talking at a situation in which management was selecting which cases would be viewed during particular hours. that is important because a lot of what people learn about the justice system when they watch televised trials is actually wrong. the decisions that someone makes about what is going to appear on television, which cases are going to be featured during a time, which are sexy and important, it is an enormous amount of power. i do not feel comfortable
10:32 pm
leaving that power with the management that is seeking an audience, seeking ratings. i feel less comfortable about a situation in which management or a tv station has the ability to sift through and selects cases they think the audience will want to see. a market driven access to the court. we have to be careful. are we talking about access to which the camera is running in a particular courtroom? even if we have the safeguards? or a selective feature piece which has the possibility of decreasing public intelligence. >> you want to pitch in? >> the ninth circuit has its own youtube channel where you can watch oral arguments over the internet. with regard to appellate
10:33 pm
arguments, audio is just as good as having video made available. the ninth circuit does record all of its arguments. they do not filter them in any way. they just put it out there. >> would you like to respond? >> i respect where you're coming from but i disagree there can be any mechanism other than the private sector to decide which cases did televised and which don't. one sad development over the last 10 years is that court tv, which was a television station built around trials, too complicated financial corporate mergers, it became part of my
10:34 pm
company, time-warner, which on cnn. court tv has been folded. there is no such channel is court tv anymore. there is something called in a session which is part of headline news. one of the problems that came up with cameras in the courtroom as a long-term enterprises that the public interest in a regular diet of trials is small. it has not yet been a long term success. individual trials catch people's interest. o.j. simpson did. casey anthony has been a big hit. i do not see any alternative to the market making these decisions. for all that we belabor the
10:35 pm
simpson case, even that case had important public benefits. just to cite the most important, the public recognition and embrace of dna evidence as an important tool in law enforcement and in convicting the guilty and freeing the innocent. the fact that we have jurors who know about dna evidence and respect -- expected, that is a positive thing for a system that tries to be as accurate as possible. i wish the public was interested in nothing but high-minded cases. the fourth circuit audiences would get the same audience as casey anthony. but i lived in the real world. i do not see any alternative to letting the market decide what it's broadcasted and what does not.
10:36 pm
>> one more round. he said that the interest this law. the problem is that the public interest in race, sex, murder, abduction, it is very big. that is why we know about casey anthony. that is why the question is, what are we trying to accomplish? are we trying to feed a market and have our court to satisfy the public for entertainment purposes or are we trying to provide something educational, something that increases the civic knowledge of members of the public? starting with what the purpose is is going to get you to the right place in terms of how you build that. if we're concerned about transparency, everybody has already mentioned a variety of things that need to happen even before we get to the point of cameras in the courtroom for tryouts.
10:37 pm
have no problem with cameras for appellate arguments. we have to be really careful about whether or not this discussion is about transparency and educating the public or having to do with the -- what happens with the courtroom. >> one other thing that might be worth mentioning, we should not ignore the demise of the beat reporter. when i began, there was a reporter for the local paper that just covered court cases. he is long gone. before long, newspapers will be gone. if the cameras do not coming, it will be more of a mystery than now. >> are the speakers in the aisles? do they have microphones? we have a limited amount of
10:38 pm
time. i would like to draw the audience into this. find a couple of good questions for the panel. we need to make sure the microphones are on. >> i am from baltimore. maryland is the only state that has an absolute statutory bar on a broadcast coverage of criminal trials. antecedent of that was a case in the 1920's presided by a famous judge. the advantage of an absolute bar is bad and the fact that -- found in the fact that once you
10:39 pm
give discretion to a judge or to becomest'ss, the bar meaningless. the other matter worth considering is the point that the professor made. the difference between the chancellor cases was a difference between a highly publicized case and a case that was on publicized. if you read the decision in chandler, if properly should not have allowed what happened in the o.j. simpson case. the fact of the matter is that when you allow the televising of criminal trials, you transfer the judgment of character to the mass media and to an increasingly concentrated mass media.
10:40 pm
the hand that rules the mass media, i am paraphrasing, rules the country. if you want the authority of course to be further diluted, i cannot think of a better way of doing so than allowing fox news or msnbc to decide what trials are televised and what exurbs are emphasized. who the commentators are. there is no better way of inflaming public opinion and making jurors feel their judgment is going to be counteracted by a public referendum than by the allowing of televising criminal trials. i believe that is a door which should not be opened because of the temptations of fame and
10:41 pm
money. canptation's no court resist. >> i appreciate the comment. there's no question there. this someone want to comment on the comment? >> the argument that the press might not do a good job is not an argument that is supported by our traditions or the first amendment. you could make the same argument that how we cover presidential campaigns, we give these terrible commentators attention. we only cover the conflicts, the parts of the debate when there is conflict. we focus on personality, not on the issue. that is up to us. that is not up to you. if people do not want to watch, they are not going to watch.
10:42 pm
the decision to cut off access to this important part of american life and government is the wrong remedy for coverage you think is bad. >> before becoming a trial judge, i was one of -- in virginia. i was appalled by the way the television networks covered the trial. all they did was, when the news was on, they would spend 30 seconds showing the defendant walking into the courtroom, maybe show the closing argument. it was not educational. i agree that court tv was wonderful. it was great. without a network like that, it is a waste of time.
10:43 pm
>> any comment on that comment? does anyone have a question that is not on cameras in the courtroom? >> thank you. i wanted to change the subject to the issue of confidentiality in protective orders. my name is mary. i practice civil law in virginia. i been doing that for 35 years. primarily for plaintiffs. i have never had the experience of bargaining using a confidentiality or sealed order as a source. i haven't counted 99% of the time a defendant saying, if you want this settlement, you must enter into this confidentiality order. i get brought us to buy those all the time.
10:44 pm
-- barraged by those all the time. do i feel that openness is greater than my interest to my specific client in getting this case settled? that is an easy answer. it is always in favor of the client. would not this problem be easily settled by a simple rule or statute that says no filed case may be settled by a confidential and bridget confidence and -- confidentiality order showing a compelling interest as opposed to a public interest. further, to take care of the sort problem judge anderson mentioned, no consideration shall be paid between the parties for protective
10:45 pm
agreements. it seems simple. i do not know it cannot get accomplished. >> i was not casting aspersions on plaintiffs' lawyers. i was trying to be equally offensive. [laughter] including us judges. i am frequently asked why need to rule. nobody can force you to do anything. that ignores the human dynamics the come into play when you're sitting there the day before a three week trial is supposed to begin with someone who has a serious injury. the lawyers say, we have this case settled. you have to sign off on this gag order. the judge is under pressure to go along. if not, you're inviting a three week trial. you might be depriving the plaintiff of a substantial settlement by rejecting the settlement. that is the answer to why we
10:46 pm
need a rule rather than judges not going along with it. what you suggested is what we did in south carolina. it is complicated. we're not queen to seal any settlements. for good cause, we can -- it is a giant loophole. we have a culture in south carolina and that we do not like secrecy involving public safety or public interest. secret formulas, state secrets, not a problem. but i am not in disagreement with anything you said. >> anything else to follow up? yes, sir. >> i hate to return to cameras in the courtroom, but is it better to have a market driven information available to the
10:47 pm
public or is it better to have no information available to the public except fiction? >> i do not accept the premise of the question. >> that is because you're a law professor. [laughter] >> this goes back to the other point. there is not know access to criminal trials. they are held in public buildings that the public and go to. they should be covered by reporters. this is the point that judge anderson made. there was a time when there was a reporter assigned to the courthouse. you could presume that if your town has a newspaper, or more than one, you would have multiple accounts of the trial. i do a lot of historical research. i've learned about all trials in the 19th and mid-1930s and '40's. it comes from accounts and newspapers. we have a media problem no question. we do not have been no access
10:48 pm
issue. this is not a constitutional question in the sense that we of cut off access to criminal trials. we have a balance of interest. one as we all share in openness and transparency, to have the public what -- know what is happening. my own view is that a lot of mischief happens in the course of trials. cameras in the courtroom might be helpful for some of that. the problem is there are these other interests like safety and security. i suggest there is a whole other set of issues that is not -- that has to do with whether not we enter a path of inviting further disinformation and a lack of knowledge about our system by having cameras in the courtroom in a way that is driven by what best appeals to the prurient interest of the public and the dollars and cents
10:49 pm
interest of television networks. they would focus on cases that involved interracial murder, child abduction, high-profile individuals accused of crimes, and so forth. they will not tell the public a good deal about our justice system except at the extremes. it will reinforce a certain idea about the justice system. like the belief that our children are in imminent danger from a child actor. frank b., a lot of that has been driven by what we see on television. i am only suggesting that to leave those decisions with the market, that puts criminal trials on the same basis as the kardashian sister. some of you do not know who they are. [laughter] good. what do we want to accomplish by this? if we want to have a c-span
10:50 pm
system, where the public gets the on packaged exposure to criminal trials, that may be one issue. it would not resolve all of the safety issues that have been mentioned. we should not pretend that turning this over to networks is going to make the public more aware about the justice system. >> i would like to chime in of essor ifill.rof if the primary reason is entertainment, we need to reexamine how we are delivering this education to the public. i think court tv was fabulous. i can raise my hand and tell you, i do not know who casey antonia's. when i'm on the treadmill, i go from cnn, which is my favorite
10:51 pm
station. it truly is. then there is a station where all you ever see is casey anthony. when i flipped over to my other favorite station, pbs. going back and forth you have to suffer a couple seconds of what appears to be histrionic entertainment. i agree with professor ifill that we need to look at a more toned down delivery system like court tv. i would think that could be tailored to serve an educational purpose. >> others? >> i have said my piece. [laughter] i have persuaded those i'm going to persuade. >> this has been a stimulating discussion. we thank each of you.
10:52 pm
unfortunately, our morning forum must now conclude. i asked you in the audience to join me in expressing our appreciation to the panelists for sharing their insight. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the supreme court has finished work for the term. a look at some of the decisions. they blocked a class-action suit against wal-mart and allowed video game makers to sell violent video games to minors in california. hosted by the heritage foundation, a live coverage gets underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern. julian assange is fighting extradition to sweden where he is wanted for questioning on a
10:53 pm
rape charge. he spoke to a forum in london. that is next on c-span. after that, a discussion on science and innovation in the west we will hear from a doctor who heads the national institute of health. >> next, julian assange talking about the ethics, philosophy, and history of his organization. wikileaks was created in 2006 and publishes classified information from anonymous news sources and whistle blowers. the event was moderated by amy of democracy now. >> we are excited to be doing this today. i would like to thank the troxy
10:54 pm
center. i would like to thank dan, our branding man, i am standing in front of 100 logos. thank you for our new look. we're not shy. i would like to thank the front- line staff who worked hard to put this on. particularly flora and millie. i am proud of you all. the front line club exists to promote journalism and to put on debates and discussions like this. we are a social enterprise. if you wish to support this, come to paddington where we can feed and entertain you. we do 200 events a year. it helps us do this work. we are very grateful for it.
10:55 pm
if you want to help democracy now, you can buy some books were put donations at the end. it is julian assange's birthday tomorrow. if you want to help them with those legal fees, and give generously at the end. all that remains is for me to welcome ammy goodman. she is an award winning journalist. she is the main presenter for democracy now and is flown from american to be here. she is a fine person. i am glad to hand over to her now. [applause]
10:56 pm
[sustained applause] >> good afternoon. it is a great honor to be with you this afternoon. a shout out to all of the people who are watching this broadcast all over the world. we are live streaming this at how many of you watch or listen to democracy now? [applause] we have given out about 1000 fliers where we broadcast in britain. also where you can watch and read the broadcast. we are also live streaming on
10:57 pm
the internet for anyone to put on there website. the nation is live streaming us. free speech tv is broadcasting across the united states. people are using facebook and twitter with this broadcast. it is important because information is power. information as a matter of life and death. we have learned that through these remarkable documents that have been released in the last year. the iraq war locks, the afghanistan war logs, and cable- gate, the documents that are continuing to be released. why does that matter so much? we will talk about that this afternoon. let's take one example the came
10:58 pm
out of the iraq war logs. these logs show that two men were standing under an apache helicopter. the men have their hands up. they are attempting to surrender. the helicopter can see this. they are not a rogue. the soldiers called back to the base. they ask what to do. the lawyer says you cannot surrender to a helicopter. they blow the man away. that was february 2007. now we fast 4 to july 12, 2007. video has been released by wikileaks. this devastating video of an
10:59 pm
area of baghdad where a group of men were showing around reuters the journalists. a videographer and his driver. he was the father of four. they were showing them around the area. the same apache helicopter unit is hovering above. they opened fire. the video is chilling. i am sure many of you have seen it. if you watch democracy now, we played it repeatedly, discussing it with various people. we dissected it. the soldiers opened fire. you have the video of the targets and you have the audio of the soldiers

Tonight From Washington
CSPAN July 5, 2011 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT

News/Business. News.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 26, U.s. 12, Virginia 11, Florida 11, Libya 8, New York 8, South Carolina 7, Anderson 6, Maryland 6, United States 6, Casey Anthony 6, Keenan 3, Julian Assange 3, Baltimore 3, West Virginia 3, California 3, Washington 3, United States Senate 2, O.j. Simpson 2, Jeffrey Tubin 2
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 100 (651 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 7/6/2011